<?php
/**
 * <https://y.st./>
 * Copyright © 2018 Alex Yst <mailto:copyright@y.st>
 * 
 * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org./licenses/>.
**/

$xhtml = array(
	'<{title}>' => 'Unmotivated',
	'takedown' => '2017-11-01',
	'<{body}>' => <<<END
<img src="/img/CC_BY-SA_4.0/y.st./weblog/2018/06/27.jpg" alt="Miscellaneous items on a table" class="framed-centred-image" width="649" height="480"/>
<section id="driving">
	<h2>Driving instruction</h2>
	<p>
		The driving lessons I&apos;ve been getting have been coming from a two-person team.
		One person gives the lessons, while the other seems to do most of the office work, such as scheduling, contacting people, et cetera.
		It seems that last time, when the one person offered me a Friday appointment, they meant <strong>*two Fridays from now*</strong>, not this coming Friday as implied.
		Their partner thought the same thing I did, that the appointment was this week.
		Anyway, they were able to move up the appointment, so now I guess it&apos;s right where I thought it was to begin with?
		If the partner hadn&apos;t had the same misunderstanding I&apos;d had, I&apos;d&apos;ve shown up to find I&apos;d come for nothing.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="drudgery">
	<h2>Drudgery</h2>
	<p>
		Today should have been an easy day, but I allowed myself to get distracted for most of it.
		I didn&apos;t get what I needed done done early on, and had to rush my essay at the end of the day.
		They essay didn&apos;t involve as much research as it probably should have as a result, though to be honest, I&apos;m not sure I really care.
		I mean, there&apos;s a reason I put it off so long: my heart isn&apos;t in it.
		With the school exerting censorship over me, I really don&apos;t have the motivation to give my coursework my all anyway.
	</p>
	<p>
		My discussion posts for the day:
	</p>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			I guess a solution was never found for the page from the reading material that wouldn&apos;t load?
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Being an atheist and a positivist, I certainly wish that positivism and theism were mutually exclusive, but I don&apos;t think they actually are.
			Part of our reading assignment claims that Christianity uses positivism as its underlying morality.
			I completely disagree; Christianity is based on rule by Yahweh, the supposed god of all creation.
			Yahweh is shown in the religious writings to often act through fear and force, which are much more in line with realism than positivism.
			In any case, if positivism didn&apos;t allow for the inclusion of religion in decision-making, the reading assignment wouldn&apos;t&apos;ve tried to claim Christianity used realism as its morality component.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			I like your summaries, especially those of pragmatism and realism!
			They&apos;re short and to the point, but still convey a very clear description of what those philosophy types are about.
			I&apos;m not sure I agree with your description of positivism, but your description is still easy to understand.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			You do make a very interesting point.
			The child did use force to prevent the examination.
			I don&apos;t typically consider defensive force against offensive force as a use of force itself, but it very much is.
			I wouldn&apos;t say the doctor&apos;s use of force was a reaction to the patient&apos;s use of force though, but the other way around.
			The child didn&apos;t lash out at the doctor or anything, they were just uncooperative.
			It was only once the doctor started using offensive force that the patient was able to use defensive force to try to prevent the forced examination.
			Clenching one&apos;s jaw shut before the doctor had done anything yet, while an exertion of force in the physics sense, isn&apos;t really a &quot;use of force&quot; in the human interaction sense.
			Neglect front he parents isn&apos;t really a &quot;use of force&quot; either, so assuming the child wasn&apos;t beaten, the parents weren&apos;t involved in a use of force either.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Yeah, nothing in the story tells us when the story takes place.
			The page the story&apos;s on though includes the author&apos;s birth year and death year though.
			It doesn&apos;t seem to be intended to be a futuristic story, so we can assume that at the time it was written, it was meant to take place in the present or past.
			The death year was quite a while ago, so we can assume that the story takes place in the past from our perspective.
			Honestly, I wouldn&apos;t&apos;ve even noticed if I wasn&apos;t deliberately trying to choose an old story due to my distaste for copyright law (very old works have fallen out of copyright).
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			I see where you&apos;re coming from; I don&apos;t read many short stories either.
			When I want to read, I either look up an article or I go check out a novel from the local library.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			I don&apos;t understand your question.
			The main differences are explained in simple terms using the bulleted lists.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Yes, we develop our thoughts as we go, but we can&apos;t post about our initial thoughts until after we&apos;ve read the material.
			Unless you&apos;re suggesting we post blindly without having read the material, that is.
			Such posting would be uninformed and not at all productive to the discussion.
			It might even be misleading to those that read such posts, making it outright counterproductive.
			I&apos;m not sure in what way you thought I was being hard on myself; I was being hard on whomever decided to give us this counter-productively-short timespan in which so work.
			Having only two days is completely unreasonable.
		</p>
		<p>
			It&apos;s not that I don&apos;t have much experience with pragmatism, it&apos;s that I don&apos;t have any <strong>*personal*</strong> examples of it, which is what the assignment asked for.
			I don&apos;t think in that way; it&apos;s completely contradictory to my moral framework.
			I have plenty of experience with it in the form of interactions with pragmatic people; in particular, one person I&apos;ve known for most of my life seems to act mostly on pragmatism: my mother.
			Needless to say, we don&apos;t get along well whenever issues of morality come up.
			She wants to act on what she perceives will be easy and good for her in the short run, while I focus on the good of the majority in the long run.
			It&apos;s particularly annoying when she tries to convince me an option is better because it helps me at the cost of everyone else, as she doesn&apos;t get that my good doesn&apos;t outweigh the good of the majority.
		</p>
		<p>
			As for my boss, if I gave you the impression I don&apos;t like them, that was completely not my intent.
			Honestly, my boss is a coward that doesn&apos;t stand up for their own employees, so I won&apos;t stand up for them and say they&apos;re the best, but that&apos;s completely a separate issue from anything I discussed in my post.
			My boss is fine as long as you don&apos;t need them to do their job.
			They&apos;re fine on an interactional level, and I get along with them quite well on most days.
			The point was that your superiors give you orders and it&apos;s in your best interest to follow them, even when those orders aren&apos;t part of a great plan.
			You do what you&apos;re told, either because it&apos;s in your best interest to or because it&apos;s in the best interest of the company to have everyone unified with a single plan, be the plan well-thought-out or not.
		</p>
		<p>
			I think maybe the page on positivism was the one written using sort of old grammar, if I recall.
			I find text difficult to process if it&apos;s written using poor grammar, and old grammar is indistinguishable from bad grammar.
			Either way, it&apos;s difficult to understand and I very well could have gotten the message wrong.
			Like you said too, the reading was rushed.
			We had two days to complete it all, all while taking care of non-academic responsibilities as well.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
</section>
END
);
